Microsoft has declined to comment on whether the ballot is applicable

Mozilla issued a statement last week raising concerns over some technical restrictions that Microsoft is imposing on Windows RT, the ARM variant of the upcoming Windows 8 operating system. Windows RT will not provide third-party software with access to the conventional native platform APIs in its classic desktop mode. This means rival browsers won’t be able to support the environment.

As we wrote in our coverage of the dispute last week, Mozilla warned Microsoft that the restrictions could carry antitrust implications. The statement, which was written by Mozilla General Counsel Harvey Anderson, pointed out that denying native third-party applications access to the classic desktop would conflict with Microsoft’s Windows Principles. It could fall afoul of the company’s commitments in Europe and the United States.

According to a new report from InfoWorld, Microsoft has declined to comment on whether its 2009 deal with EU regulators will require Windows 8 to carry a browser ballot like the one that currently ships with Windows in Europe. The browser ballot, which is displayed after the first boot, prompts the user to select from a list of available browsers. The order of the list is randomized in order to prevent favoring any individual browser vendor.

The browser ballot was endorsed by Opera, Mozilla, and Google. Data published by the browser vendors in 2010 indicated that the ballot was improving adoption of third-party browsers in Europe. Opera, which originally instigated the EU’s browser investigation, saw its downloads triple in several European countries in the immediate aftermath of the ballot’s launch.

Microsoft’s deal with EU regulators specifically mandates inclusion of the ballot in subsequent versions of Windows. It is set to expire in 2014, which means that it is theoretically still applicable to Windows 8. It’s not clear yet whether Microsoft will be able to reconcile its browser ballot obligations with the technical restrictions in Windows RT.

88 Reader Comments

It shouldn't do, since Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly position and it's a completely different operating system in a different market.

WoA competes with the iPad and Android tablets, which currently hold 100% marketshare between them.Microsoft will have (upon launch) a position similar to Apple when it comes to x86 machines, a tiny marketshare which is irrelevant to the general market.The EU does not have antitrust concerns over the browser which ships as standard on OSX, and nor should they have issues with the browser situation of Windows 8 for ARM, because there's no monopoly or even significant marketshare.

They should understand that the code base and underlying architecture is separate to "mainline" Windows 8, and should not be held to the same rulings. Any other decision will be super easy to appeal, and would be idiotic.

Fuck, I had forgotten about that waste of time browser ballot. Is the EU still fucking around with the idea that an operating system in 2012 shouldn't ship with a browser and media player?

If the EU persues Windows RT (a product designed to target a specific market where Microsoft has no presence yet) for this, it needs to go after the iPad as well, who is the current market leader in this space.

Now, as much as I disagree with the stupid ballot, if Microsoft omits it on Windows 8 on x86 platforms (be it laptop, desktop or tablet factor), then there's a case.

Yeah this monopoly argument these companies are throwing around in this day and age is just an excuse to not have to compete. I dont see them whining to the EU about a browser ballot on iphones, ipads, or android devices. They are just trying to milk it as much as they can.

Fuck, I had forgotten about that waste of time browser ballot. Is the EU still fucking around with the idea that an operating system in 2012 shouldn't ship with a browser and media player?

If the EU persues Windows RT (a product designed to target a specific market where Microsoft has no presence yet) for this, it needs to go after the iPad as well, who is the current market leader in this space.

Now, as much as I disagree with the stupid ballot, if Microsoft omits it on Windows 8 on x86 platforms (be it laptop, desktop or tablet factor), then there's a case.

Remember that to Microsoft, Windows 8 is not the exact same as Windows RT.

Fuck, I had forgotten about that waste of time browser ballot. Is the EU still fucking around with the idea that an operating system in 2012 shouldn't ship with a browser and media player?

If the EU persues Windows RT (a product designed to target a specific market where Microsoft has no presence yet) for this, it needs to go after the iPad as well, who is the current market leader in this space.

Now, as much as I disagree with the stupid ballot, if Microsoft omits it on Windows 8 on x86 platforms (be it laptop, desktop or tablet factor), then there's a case.

I take it from the third person you're not from the EU. I believe the idea isn't that the OS ships without a browser or other essential software, more that the maker of the OS cannot gain an unfair advantage whilst producing browsers and media players so entirely useless that the world and his dog have attempted to replace them as deeply as the OS will allow.

P.S. I can't see why you wouldn't be all for allowing users to choose which software and formats they want actual support for, I couldn't give a hoot about monopolies, though MS have been a convicted monopoly on both sides of the pond. All pay for OS makers seem to enforce cack standards support on the world, FLAC, HTML5, SVG, CSS3, WEBM, OGG Vorbis. I'd happily see a ballot on both media and web browsers on all OS's if you want vanilla apple/MS just click for it.

When you buy a car in Europe do you get to choose which brand of engine, tires, coolant, and gasoline come in it? No?

I never understood this stupid browser ballot. I'm sure there's a majority argument that this was just an EU cash grab.

Actually, this is more along the lines of buying a car and losing all choice in what you're allowed to eat for dinner now. Anyways, the answer to your question is "yes". I can buy a car, and replace the tires, engine, coolant, gas, ect to my hearts content. My understanding is that you can't do that with WoA.

Remember that to Microsoft, Windows 8 is not the exact same as Windows RT.

Isn't that what I said? Windows 8 and Windows RT are targeting two different markets. The only convergence would be an x86 tablet where Microsoft would have to fulfill this stupid ballot.

stewski wrote:

I take it from the third person you're not from the EU. I believe the idea isn't that the OS ships without a browser or other essential software, more that the maker of the OS cannot gain an unfair advantage whilst producing browsers and media players so entirely useless that the world and his dog have attempted to replace them as deeply as the OS will allow.

P.S. I can't see why you wouldn't be all for allowing users to choose which software and formats they want actual support for, I couldn't give a hoot about monopolies, though MS have been a convicted monopoly on both sides of the pond. All pay for OS makers seem to enforce cack standards support on the world, FLAC, HTML5, SVG, CSS3, WEBM, OGG Vorbis. I'd happily see a ballot on both media and web browsers on all OS's if you want vanilla apple/MS just click for it.

(It takes one click of my name to see where I'm from )I'm not against choice. If Firefox were available to iOS/Windows Phone/Windows RT, I would use it. But this ballot is just completely stupid. It might have been a bit more relevant even in 5 years ago, but today, where browser market share is a bit more even, it's dumb. I'm also against forcing any company to provide free advertising to a competitor's product. That's the stupid thing. People who want alternative browsers are getting them without this ballot. People who don't care continue to use the Internet.

P.S. I can't see why you wouldn't be all for allowing users to choose which software and formats they want actual support for, I couldn't give a hoot about monopolies, though MS have been a convicted monopoly on both sides of the pond. All pay for OS makers seem to enforce cack standards support on the world, FLAC, HTML5, SVG, CSS3, WEBM, OGG Vorbis. I'd happily see a ballot on both media and web browsers on all OS's if you want vanilla apple/MS just click for it.

Ok, so a few things here.

1. This has nothing at all to do with media formats. Nothing. We are taking about allowing third party vendors to make certain kinds of software on the Windows RT platform. The supported media formats are not part of that discussion.

2. Format selection is not as simple as a checkbox. Many formats are owned, proprietary, and require licensing fees to be paid. This is usually what causes format wars to occur in the first place: the need to balance cost against necessary features.

3. HTML5 and CSS3 are browser formats supported by all modern browsers, including IE9. Choosing IE( will not leave you without support for these. You cannot make a choice that excludes them.

Actually, this is more along the lines of buying a car and losing all choice in what you're allowed to eat for dinner now. Anyways, the answer to your question is "yes". I can buy a car, and replace the tires, engine, coolant, gas, ect to my hearts content. My understanding is that you can't do that with WoA.

you can't do that in iOS either, and iOS has way more market share in the tablet space than the unreleased Windows RT.

It shouldn't do, since Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly position and it's a completely different operating system in a different market.

WoA competes with the iPad and Android tablets, which currently hold 100% marketshare between them.Microsoft will have (upon launch) a position similar to Apple when it comes to x86 machines, a tiny marketshare which is irrelevant to the general market.The EU does not have antitrust concerns over the browser which ships as standard on OSX, and nor should they have issues with the browser situation of Windows 8 for ARM, because there's no monopoly or even significant marketshare.

They should understand that the code base and underlying architecture is separate to "mainline" Windows 8, and should not be held to the same rulings. Any other decision will be super easy to appeal, and would be idiotic.

If Microsoft had separated Windows 8 and Metro into two different products, that would be valid. But in order to leverage their Windows desktop OS advantage onto tablets, they decided to merge them into one pseudo product line. The good is that they get a lot of leverage. The bad is they take the limitations that come with that leverage.

That said, I think they could completely bypass this by not giving their ARM browser access to the desktop UI APIs. If, as is claimed, people on ARM devices will only use the desktop interface for Office, and even that only as a transitional move, then why are they making a browser for it at all? No, I think there is a real possibility the Windows RT desktop mode is going to be used on netbooks and other non-tablet devices. It's not just a tablet OS.

The ballot is not issue for x86 compatible Windows 8 as MS seem to allow 3rd party browsers there on both desktop and metro interface. MS is probably ready to do it.

On the other hand I think that MS is not willing to bring 3rd party browsers on ARM, because they don't have to do it. Maybe I missed some information from this article, but the inclusion of ballot on ARM is pure speculation since no one saw that deal between EU and MS. MS had monopoly in general purpose, x86 compatible computers market, not ARM. Since MS hinted that there won't be any other browsers on Windows RT, I guess MS have no monopoly there, so they are allowed to do anything on ARM.

[quote="stewski]I take it from the third person you're not from the EU. I believe the idea isn't that the OS ships without a browser or other essential software, more that the maker of the OS cannot gain an unfair advantage whilst producing browsers and media players so entirely useless that the world and his dog have attempted to replace them as deeply as the OS will allow.

P.S. I can't see why you wouldn't be all for allowing users to choose which software and formats they want actual support for, I couldn't give a hoot about monopolies, though MS have been a convicted monopoly on both sides of the pond. All pay for OS makers seem to enforce cack standards support on the world, FLAC, HTML5, SVG, CSS3, WEBM, OGG Vorbis. I'd happily see a ballot on both media and web browsers on all OS's if you want vanilla apple/MS just click for it.[/quote]

1) In the Us it was Anti-Competetive behvior, not Monoply. There is a difference.

2) For a lot of people who just want to turn on the PC/tablet/whatever and go; IE and MP work fine. I like the idea of VLC, I justdon't like the look, feel or level of effort I've had to pu into playing a series of songs. Or get it to keep the windo fullscreen, or play a movie without stuttering. Maybe these have been fixed, it's been a year or so. And if the replacements are so readily available, then why is there a need for a ballot?

Actually, this is more along the lines of buying a car and losing all choice in what you're allowed to eat for dinner now. Anyways, the answer to your question is "yes". I can buy a car, and replace the tires, engine, coolant, gas, ect to my hearts content. My understanding is that you can't do that with WoA.

you can't do that in iOS either, and iOS has way more market share in the tablet space than the unreleased Windows RT.

PS: skinning Safari doesn't count in my mind

Webkit isn't Safari. So all those other browsers on iOS are real browsers. Unless you consider Google's Chrome browser and OS to be skinned versions of Safari too, which I don't suppose you do. Most browsers today, other than IE and Firefox, use Webkit. I think those companies and organizations would take umbrage at your remarks.

When you buy a car in Europe do you get to choose which brand of engine, tires, coolant, and gasoline come in it? No?

I never understood this stupid browser ballot. I'm sure there's a majority argument that this was just an EU cash grab.

Actually, this is more along the lines of buying a car and losing all choice in what you're allowed to eat for dinner now. Anyways, the answer to your question is "yes". I can buy a car, and replace the tires, engine, coolant, gas, ect to my hearts content. My understanding is that you can't do that with WoA.

And to draw this back to Chmilz point standard Windows allowed you to install whatever browser you wanted so you could, "replace the tires, engine, coolant, gas, ect to my hearts content" and so forth. But unlike a car dealership, that only deals in their own products, MS got the "priviledge" to also sell their competitors products.

How this relates to WoA is that a product that is using ARM is very likely (a) performance sensative and (b) power sensative. If MS is looking to compete with iPhones, iPads, and Android devices (which are essentually OS's scaling from the low end slowly upward in terms of features and performance as they were built around mobility/power/performance concerns) MS is in a rock-and-a-hard-place when trying to compete on performance/power. The obvious answer is going to a more closed ecosystem in some regards--which when looking at casual consumer devices from mobile phones to gaming consoles is the "way to go" and is what MS is effectively competiting against.

Actually, this is more along the lines of buying a car and losing all choice in what you're allowed to eat for dinner now. Anyways, the answer to your question is "yes". I can buy a car, and replace the tires, engine, coolant, gas, ect to my hearts content. My understanding is that you can't do that with WoA.

you can't do that in iOS either, and iOS has way more market share in the tablet space than the unreleased Windows RT.

PS: skinning Safari doesn't count in my mind

Webkit isn't Safari. So all those other browsers on iOS are real browsers. Unless you consider Google's Chrome browser and OS to be skinned versions of Safari too, which I don't suppose you do. Most browsers today, other than IE and Firefox, use Webkit. I think those companies and organizations would take umbrage at your remarks.

And the same thing can be done on Windows RT using the Trident engine. It's the exact same situation. You can't use Firefox's Gecko or Opera's whatever on iOS or Windows RT.

Microsoft's problem is that they insist in calling their OS's that aren't Windows, Windows. So if Win RT on ARM is just a variant of Windows, according to MS, then they have to abide by the rules they agreed to. If they would wake up, and understand that most people don't consider an OS that doesn run the same programs as being another OS, and would just admit that it is another OS, and call it by another name, say, Metro OS, then just maybe they wouldn't get into trouble like this.

you can't do that in iOS either, and iOS has way more market share in the tablet space than the unreleased Windows RT.

PS: skinning Safari doesn't count in my mind

Webkit isn't Safari. So all those other browsers on iOS are real browsers. Unless you consider Google's Chrome browser and OS to be skinned versions of Safari too, which I don't suppose you do. Most browsers today, other than IE and Firefox, use Webkit. I think those companies and organizations would take umbrage at your remarks.

Not true. In iOS firefox cannot use the Gekko engine, and Google could not use their custom JS engine. Like all other browser devs in iOS they would have to use iOS's web engine and JS engine (the web engine which just happens to be WebKit). So since all iOS browsers have to use Safari's web engine and JS engine, it is just like reskinning Safari. Hence my comparison.

PS: which as Entegy says above is what you at least can do (currently) in Windows RT. I don't recall if the Metro Broswer hooks that MS is providing work on ARM or just x86.

When you buy a car in Europe do you get to choose which brand of engine, tires, coolant, and gasoline come in it? No?

I never understood this stupid browser ballot. I'm sure there's a majority argument that this was just an EU cash grab.

Actually, this is more along the lines of buying a car and losing all choice in what you're allowed to eat for dinner now. Anyways, the answer to your question is "yes". I can buy a car, and replace the tires, engine, coolant, gas, ect to my hearts content. My understanding is that you can't do that with WoA.

sad. can't with ios either. i think the EU needs to get some monies from the fruit company.

you can't do that in iOS either, and iOS has way more market share in the tablet space than the unreleased Windows RT.

PS: skinning Safari doesn't count in my mind

Webkit isn't Safari. So all those other browsers on iOS are real browsers. Unless you consider Google's Chrome browser and OS to be skinned versions of Safari too, which I don't suppose you do. Most browsers today, other than IE and Firefox, use Webkit. I think those companies and organizations would take umbrage at your remarks.

Not true. In iOS firefox cannot use the Gekko engine, and Google could not use their custom JS engine. Like all other browser devs in iOS they would have to use iOS's web engine and JS engine (the web engine which just happens to be WebKit). So since all iOS browsers have to use Safari's web engine and JS engine, it is just like reskinning Safari. Hence my comparison.

You missed the entire point. You just don't get it. The rendering engine is just that. It's not the browser. But many other browsers are based on Webkit, and most don't use a custome rendering engine, because that's what Webkit does, very well. Since you don't want to believe that Chrome uses Webkit, in both of its variations,, you obviously don't want to understand what that means for individual browsers.

You missed the entire point. You just don't get it. The rendering engine is just that. It's not the browser. But many other browsers are based on Webkit, and most don't use a custome rendering engine, because that's what Webkit does, very well.

His original point was that none of those other "browsers" have access to JIT APIs, as ONLY Safari has access to those... That's the EXACT same scenario on WinRT. Only trident has access to JIT. But the BIG difference, is that if you build a shell for Trident, you still benefit from Trident's use of JIT... On iOS, if you write your own shell for the rendering engine you still don't have access to JIT.

You missed the entire point. You just don't get it. The rendering engine is just that. It's not the browser. But many other browsers are based on Webkit, and most don't use a custome rendering engine, because that's what Webkit does, very well.

His original point was that none of those other "browsers" have access to JIT APIs, as ONLY Safari has access to those... That's the EXACT same scenario on WinRT. Only trident has access to JIT. But the BIG difference, is that if you build a shell for Trident, you still benefit from Trident's use of JIT... On iOS, if you write your own shell for the rendering engine you still don't have access to JIT.

So... can we claim the use of "Sekrit APIs!" And yeah, if you aren't Apple's browser, you actually have an Apple enforced penalty (no JIT for you!)

So if boot2gecko doesn't allow to install other browsers with the same privileges and API available as it is to the internal, and that without voiding warranty (i.e. setting some root switch), MS is officially allowed to sue Mozilla? (note I've no idea about b2g's limitations so they may already allow exactly that - I'm just wondering)

I mean MS's market share in the tablet space is certainly not larger than Mozilla's share at the moment..

Not true. In iOS firefox cannot use the Gekko engine, and Google could not use their custom JS engine. Like all other browser devs in iOS they would have to use iOS's web engine and JS engine (the web engine which just happens to be WebKit). So since all iOS browsers have to use Safari's web engine and JS engine, it is just like reskinning Safari. Hence my comparison.

You missed the entire point. You just don't get it. The rendering engine is just that. It's not the browser. But many other browsers are based on Webkit, and most don't use a custome rendering engine, because that's what Webkit does, very well. Since you don't want to believe that Chrome uses Webkit, in both of its variations,, you obviously don't want to understand what that means for individual browsers.

Your comparison is invalid.

Chrome does use WebKit, and I never said otherwise.

Chrome however does not use the same JavaScript engine as Safari. Chrome uses V8 where Safari uses Nitro. Both use WebKit to render the Web.

So Chrome =/= Safari under the hood because they have different JavaScript engines.

IE and FireFox don't use WebKit or V8, or Nitro.

If a third-party iOS browser must use WebKit and Nitro, this makes it most like Safari, even if the browser is produced by Google since Google couldn’t use their V8 JS engine. Even more so if the browser was called FireFox and made by Mozilla

I mean MS's market share in the tablet space is certainly not larger than Mozilla's share at the moment.

It might not be bigger, but they have the desktop space they're going to leverage by pushing out the same APIs and user interface. That's one avenue Mozilla certainly doesn't have, and one MS is pretty obviously banking on.

When you buy a car in Europe do you get to choose which brand of engine, tires, coolant, and gasoline come in it? No?

I never understood this stupid browser ballot. I'm sure there's a majority argument that this was just an EU cash grab.

Maybe you never understood it, because you never thought it through.The more correct analogy would be the question of what radio you get with your new car. Even this comparison is lacking though, for, while radios may also come preprogrammed to a particular station whose publicity will be funneled into the unwitting happy new car owner's brain, as tastes fortunately differ, a listener is likely to switch stations anyway. Equally unwitting happy new computer owners won't have an comparatively appalling reason for switching away from MS's predefined search engine, as far as I can see.

MS Windows still enjoys a market dominating position on the desktop market. The power this confers can easily be abused and has been in the past. Curtailing this power is a without doubt a good thing and I can't see how a minimally intrusive, but highly effective measure as the browser ballot can prompt so many of the commentators here to cry foul. People are being explicitly shown they have a choice. They make their choice. End of story.

P.S. Also, there was a time, when the dominating browser was seriously putting in peril the openness of the web. IE's idiosyncrasies prompted many web developers to program directly and exclusively for that browser—"optimizing" they called it. Thus creating incompatibilities with web standards, turning the usage of an alternative browsers into an often frustrating experience. Going back to the car analogy, more and more drive-throughs and road side ins were build that you could only frequent with a car of a specific make. Not pleasant. And not healthy either.

Microsoft's problem is that they insist in calling their OS's that aren't Windows, Windows. So if Win RT on ARM is just a variant of Windows, according to MS, then they have to abide by the rules they agreed to.

That's not the case. The rulings aren't against Windows. It's against the Windows that htey have a monopoly with. Specifically, the non-ARM versions of Windows. The name is relevant at all.

Yeah this monopoly argument these companies are throwing around in this day and age is just an excuse to not have to compete. I dont see them whining to the EU about a browser ballot on iphones, ipads, or android devices. They are just trying to milk it as much as they can.

Microsoft's problem is that they insist in calling their OS's that aren't Windows, Windows. So if Win RT on ARM is just a variant of Windows, according to MS, then they have to abide by the rules they agreed to. If they would wake up, and understand that most people don't consider an OS that doesn run the same programs as being another OS, and would just admit that it is another OS, and call it by another name, say, Metro OS, then just maybe they wouldn't get into trouble like this.

Good point.

But another thing to consider is that Ballmer/Microsoft have not only have pushed the idea that Win RT on ARM is a variant of Windows but that all tablets have become personal computers.

And there is some evidence to back up this argument. Tablets (iOS, Android, finger touch interface Windows) have evolved. The latest tablets can be completely independent from a desktop or laptop in managing software. Tablets can now print directly to a printer.

So, it has been Ballmer who has stated that separating the tablet market from PC market is artificial. And, if the tablet OS market was combined with the PC OS market Microsoft would still dominate. Here is one chart from asymco.com which tries to calculate this. http://www.asymco.com/2012/03/02/when-w ... pc-market/

According to this chart, Windows has about 75% of the total PC/tablet OS market. The asymco.com website predicts that the Windows OS total will drop below 50%. But that is just speculation.

Bottom line; Microsoft is still the dominant PC OS company including tablets. And the European regulators may be looking at this in coming up with their ruling about Windows browser choices.

And the same thing can be done on Windows RT using the Trident engine. It's the exact same situation. You can't use Firefox's Gecko or Opera's whatever on iOS or Windows RT.

I think Microsoft allows custom layout and javascript engines, except they don't allow certain APIs access that are necessary for JIT with JavaScript. Your JS engine would need to be interpreted instead. Of course, none of the alternative browsers in iOS have access to JIT anyway, but it doesn't seem to make as much a stink as Microsoft. And Apple has been doing this since the iPhone-era.

Actually, this is more along the lines of buying a car and losing all choice in what you're allowed to eat for dinner now. Anyways, the answer to your question is "yes". I can buy a car, and replace the tires, engine, coolant, gas, ect to my hearts content. My understanding is that you can't do that with WoA.

you can't do that in iOS either, and iOS has way more market share in the tablet space than the unreleased Windows RT.

PS: skinning Safari doesn't count in my mind

First off, I didn't say you COULD do it in iOS, nor do I prance around singing about how apple can do no wrong and it's only evil if MS does it. I feel everyone is in the wrong here, but if you're only going to rub Microsofts nose in their shit about something everyone is doing, then everyone involved in this needs to be fired.

First off, I didn't say you COULD do it in iOS, nor do I prance around singing about how apple can do no wrong and it's only evil if MS does it. I feel everyone is in the wrong here, but if you're only going to rub Microsofts nose in their shit about something everyone is doing, then everyone involved in this needs to be fired.

I agree. The problem is that Mozilla didn't apply the same kind of pressure against Apple. They may have complain a little bit, but Apple basically gave them the middle finger. With Microsoft, the Senate is getting involved and potentially the DOJ and EU will get involved. It's bizarre how Apple can do all of this without getting hit with lawsuits from the DOJ and EU for "unfair advantages" considering that Windows RT is really competing with iOS. And there's zero product on the market with Windows RT.

I dont understand why people continure to compare Apple with Microsoft. Yes, IOS owns a lot of the market. The difefrence is that Apple didn't have a desktop monopoly to leverage for iOS. Its not illegal at all to be a monopoly. iOS gained market share because of timing and polish. Period. Microsoft's problem is that it ALREADY HAS a monopoly on desktops that its trying to leverage to gain market share on tablets/mobile browsers. Microsoft is most certainly going to sell win RT on devices besides tablets. Thin clients and low power, silent desktops could do really well especially in business. Windows RT and Windows 8 are the same. They may target different platforms, but then so does Ubuntu for ARM and Ubuntu for x86. Look at it this way, if Microsoft was really creating a separate OS, why are they shoe horning IE and Office into it but not allowing anyone else the same advantage. Microsoft's actions need to be scrutinized.

P.S. I can't see why you wouldn't be all for allowing users to choose which software and formats they want actual support for, I couldn't give a hoot about monopolies, though MS have been a convicted monopoly on both sides of the pond. All pay for OS makers seem to enforce cack standards support on the world, FLAC, HTML5, SVG, CSS3, WEBM, OGG Vorbis. I'd happily see a ballot on both media and web browsers on all OS's if you want vanilla apple/MS just click for it.

Ok, so a few things here.

1. This has nothing at all to do with media formats. Nothing. We are taking about allowing third party vendors to make certain kinds of software on the Windows RT platform. The supported media formats are not part of that discussion.

2. Format selection is not as simple as a checkbox. Many formats are owned, proprietary, and require licensing fees to be paid. This is usually what causes format wars to occur in the first place: the need to balance cost against necessary features.

3. HTML5 and CSS3 are browser formats supported by all modern browsers, including IE9. Choosing IE( will not leave you without support for these. You cannot make a choice that excludes them.

1. Actually this has plenty to do with format support, previously having been convicted of preventing browser competition through monopoly power MS fully embraced and extended HTML and related standards. If I use any OS, I wish to choose a browser that actually attempts to follow the principles of the web and the standards of the W3C.

2. generally the formats I wish to actually see supported are entirely free and are not "owned", thats the point of the web and the media formats that actually can work cross platform were it not for the deliberate exclusion by OS makers.

3. Frankly IE9 whilst the best MS have managed so far, it is still rubbish! Let's not even start with media player, especially it's "installing codec" epic and deliberate fail!